I'm just waiting for the first claim of how much better they sound than the CDs.

For me, the only vaguely interesting thing is whether these will be cut without peak limiting. Given that they applied the same peak limiting to the 24-bit ultra-expensive USB apple release, I doubt we'll escape it here.

However, it'll (hopefully!) be a much cheaper way of owning and playing Beatles vinyl than tracking down originals, and they'll sound better than most of the 1988 vinyl remasters. (Though for Help and Rubber Soul, they'll be the same masters!). The Beatles website is mostly selling the "experience" of playing vinyl, rather than any actual sonic superiority. How strange for a vinyl press release to be TOS 8 compliant!

Cheers,David.

P.S. and so it starts...

QUOTE

linuxglobe on 27th Sep 12: “I just want to own Sgt. Pepper and Abbey Road on audiophile 180 gram vinyl; I have a usb turntable, easily import into my iPhone! I *HEART* Los Beatles!!! @MarkusMcLaughln

The topic I quoted you on is MFSL releases, not all masters from all sources. What I am asking for is objective evidence to back your claim besides "well just listen to it yourself, can't you hear it?" or "everybody knows". ABX would be one example, but others I would be interested in include measurements showing they have been EQ'd by an amount we all would generally expect to be audible. [many dB, not tenths of a dB, for example] This could come in the form of an independent spectrographic analysis by a third party, or perhaps a statement from MFSL supporting that they do this sort of EQ you claim they do.

TOS #8: "All members that put forth a statement concerning subjective sound quality, must -- to the best of their ability -- provide objective support for their claims..."

"MFSL ...tend to have exaggerated bass and treble across the board" would be an example of "a statement concerning subjective sound quality". I'm kindly asking for objective evidence to support this statement, that's all.

I never stated my beliefs on the matter, they aren't set in stone, but I have a vague recollection that MFSL claim they do minimal processing.

Are you saying that you were not trolling when you requested a spectrogram for TOS #8 compliance?

I was not trolling. I am asking for evidence to help me make an informed decision.

He made a statement which contradicts my original understanding of how they, MFSL, operate. His statement was regarding EQ. I don't know about you, but the first thing that pops into my head when one needs to measure EQ differences, objectively, was spectrographs, but if they are a sore topic here because they are used for other mischief/shenanigans, as I suspect, then I'm sorry to have brought them up [I'm not a prolific poster or reader of this forum; please note my low post count compared to most of you here]; any other method would be just fine by me.

And just to prove that I'm not pulling this claim that they do minimal (if any) EQ, at all, to their recordings "out of nowhere", and just making it up out of thin air because I am "a troll", as you have just suggested, might I point out that wikipedia pretty much supports this, too:

"As with the company's record pressings, no dynamic range compression was used in the production of the CDs. For the most part, no equalization was used either, so CDs are essentially straight transfers of the original master tape." [emphasis mine]---

Just for the record, I think a rule that shuns claims of audible differences, without objective evidence to back them, is the coolest thing ever! GO SCIENCE! I'm a strong believer in evidence based science, careful level matching, protocols which eliminate observer bias, and all the other things I get the feeling most people here stand for. However, all these rules should apply to everyone, me included.

Are you saying that you were not trolling when you requested a spectrogram for TOS #8 compliance?

I was not trolling.

OK. I did assume you were trolling, when you requested a graph, quoted part of TOS #8 and omitted the part that explicitely rules out graphs as acceptable evidence.

Actually I think you are in principle right. I know that is said the most polite way to state a “get real!”, but anyway, argument follows:

- There is no need to prove that different masterings sound different (recall that “mastering” is really a shortened-down phrase for what once was called “pre-mastering”, which is not merely the transfer of audio signal, it has a mixing element to it)- However, a “remastered” sticker does not prove that any such changes have actually been made. And even if the masters aren't bit-by-bit the same, there need not have been any audible changes made, despite marketing claims to the contrary. And even if it isn't an outright lie, what does a “40th anniversary remaster” really mean? That it was remastered again? Or that they repackaged a previous remaster?- What is in principle the difference between (I) a marketing buzz trying to fool users to buy a reproduction device that makes no audible difference, and (II) a marketing buzz trying to fool users to buy a new and “improved” release which has no audible difference?

Consider this statement: “The new 'Mastered for iTunes' version sounds much better than the previous one i bought from iTunes last year”.

There is this discussion over the content of TOS#8 where, IMHO, the wording and the practice are not in line. One example could be this – TOS #8 is certainly not suited for comparing music, and not different recordings, and arguably not different (pre-)masterings. Assuming that they are indeed diffferent (pre-)masterings, differing by mixing elements.